These great adventures are routinely preceded by false assumptions (WMD, Massacre, etc...) and myths (these are not real countries/dictators, the people will welcome us, it will be a short war, it will pay for itself) essential to acceptance and entry.

Trace it directly back to poor education, understanding, intelligence (as an electorate, not as in the military oxymoron).

It is interesting in the Libyan foray that the Sec Def is taking the Sec State role from Iraq, counseling against breaking things you can't afford, but, as the Obama reference indicates, the magic keeps happening regardless of which Sorcerer's Apprentice is left to clean up afterwards.

Stephen, all of your five "reasons" seem to be in play at the moment in all three theaters of war. But they don't add up to a "rational actor" but rather an unpredictable, loose cannon of an actor, much like a couple of past empires-in-decline with which I'm a bit familiar. Irrational actors must put a horrible strain on the Realist paradigm of IR, so I commend you for grappling with them.

But since we now have two hyper-militarized irrational actors--the US and Israel--this might be an opportunity to develop a theory that accounts for their uniqueness.

I think I will go back and reread Emmanuel Todd's book predicting the fall of the American empire. His thesis is making more sense every day. Maybe his accurate prediction about the USSR was not just a lucky shot.

The analogy is fitting - along with the fact that the third installment was a losy movie - turning out to be the same in real life.

I would like to add one more reason to the list. The United States likes to join organizations. It might even be said that the United States has never encountered an organization it didn't either want to join or refused to ultimately join.
Sometimes, the US joins an organization that has other hostile members who want to combat the notion of evil. As a friend, the US can't say no and watch from the sidelines as friends of the US fight evil; especially when these friends would probably suffer humiliation at the hands of the adversary.

No. 5 on Walt's list is one that draws too little attention. It is difficult to overestimate the degree to which Congress has chosen to withdraw from oversight of Executive Branch activities -- not just in this area -- in the course of the last twenty years.

There are several reasons for this, but one that deserves thought is the centralization of power within each house of Congress. Just about all crucial decisions on the content or timing of legislation are made by the leadership of the majority party. The major exceptions are decisions involving spending, which are made in the appropriations committees of the House and Senate with input from the leadership. The will of the majority party's leadership is subject to check only by the minority party, and sometimes (in the Senate) by individual members using the body's rules to effect delay.

What is the significance of this? Oversight is a question of public responsibility, but it's also a matter of turf. Take away their substantive authority over what executive departments do, and you take away the reason for authorizing committees (and their chairmen) to become actively involved in trying to influence major policy decisions. That's what the concentration of power within the houses of Congress has wrought in this area -- if the party leader's don't object to a President ordering an attack on another country, no one else is going to object, either.

I would go one step further and maybe suggest that the United States isn't just addicted to war but rather the US DEPENDS on war.

Most people say that because of "American Exceptionalism" the United States can afford to go to war but I think it is the other way around: Because of the ability to go to war, the US has "American Exceptionalism".

As Mr. Walt has beautifully illustrated in the opening paragraphs of his article, with every war waged and every victory gained, the United States has gained in power, status, and stature. After WWII, when Europe was destroyed, Asia decimated, and the rest of the world in a weakened state, the United States effectively "inherited" the world. With the exception of the Soviet Union, the United States achieved unparalleled power and when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the United States no longer was a superpower, but rather a "hyperpower": a term used to describe the US as the singular power left in the world.

The only way to reverse this arrogance and excessive hubris is if in the unlikely event that the United States suffers a humiliating military loss at home. Like Mr. Walt said, the US homeland is safe from any threats and so the US goes out to search for "trouble" but if the US rendered to a defensive role, then the urge to go on foreign military adventures will diminish.

One reason I find myself supporting the President on this one is because I grew up behind the Iron Curtain and I witnessed what characters like Khadaffi are capable of.

The Arab spring has caught by surprise many experts, such as Mr. Walt, and also most of the dictators in the region. There seems to be a new dynamic in the air and, much like during financial crisis of 2008, the usual explanations that are valid under stable situations, do not necessarily apply. Dictators are not very fond of events that are not under their control, and the only method they have to prevent this from happening again is terror. This tendency is exacerbated in tribal societies.

Benghazi is a city that symbolizes the opposition to this Mafia type regime. It's inhabitants did not seem to buy Mr. Chapman's argument that Khadaffi's reprisals would have been on the milder side.. And on this one, I trust the people who lived with the tyrant much more than I trust a cool-headed columnist.

Steve,

Nothing is stopping you and your liberal friends from donating whatever monies you want to support these unfunded domestic programs. You can donate them to the federal goverment or to your favorite charity.

But it is a mailicious lie for you to say that conservatives think it is stupid to pay taxes to support domestic programs. We just feel that TOO MUCH money is being spent on them. And believe it or not, some of us feel too that too much is being spent on the military as well.

Do you really think the problem with education and health care in America is not enough money is being spent on it? Was that the problem 50 years ago too?

You can delude yourself into thinking that conservatives have pulled a jedi mind trick on the American people with regard to the size of the federal government and how tax dollars are allocated, and you have every right to do that. I guess I feel the American people get it right more often than not. Good thing we have liberals like you to tell us otherwise.

The link to the rest of the article is missing so I'd like to see the other reasons, but one that I do not expect to see is:

ENERGY - Libya, like Iraq, is a world-important country because of its oil. Bottom line, the US and Europe are far more likely to intervene when ability to extract oil is on the table. I'm sure that's what the Europeans had in mind and we simply followed suit.

If EMOTION had anything to do with this decision -- in Libya -- the persons involved should be fired. It is clear that the US will not intervene to stop massacres or genocide, and it is emotionalism par excellence to pretend that we do. This is not because the US enjoys or doesn't care about human massacres, it is simply that to stop them one is going to have to engage in a lot of killing in order to do so, in addition to having to nursemaid the cleanup afterwards.

My impression is that the US got roped into the Libya enterprise because the Europeans are simply not competent to do the kind of interdiction of Qaddafi they had in mind. Their request, coupled with the idealism and naivete of Hilary and Samantha, sealed the deal.

However, the moral impetus falls flat, not just because of the charge of hypocrisy. It also falls flat because the rebels -- about a thousand of them -- never had any realistic chance of overthrowing Qaddafi to begin with. That means that regime change can only be achieved if the US doubles down and invades with what remaining ground troops we have. Thank God Gates is not going to go for this, otherwise we'd be in real trouble.

The end result is that Qaddafi or one of his Lieutenants is going to stay in power in Tripoli, and our entire $500 M expenditure will have been an arguable waste of money. The neocons will scream bloody murder that we didn't invade, the liberals will lament that we didn't overthrow Qaddafi, and the realists will heave a sigh of relief.

As things stand now, the only blowback from the Libyan intervention is that it will make Obama and his adminstration appear stunningly incompetent.

"To read the full article, click here."
I don't see any hyperlink.

Searching with the FP search-bar, I found it here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/04/is_america_addicted_to_war

The UN has military operations in a lot of places now. NATO as well.

There are five nations that have equal veto power to the US in the UN, and MANY nations that initiate requests of the UN and have weight to bring questions to the general assembly and security council.

Maybe this is as it should be and the UN is policing rather than imposing.

Maybe Obama has really orchestrated the handoff of US obligations as only police on the planet to the UN?

I don't know.

Can't believe you missed the 500-lb. elephant in the room. Show me a war that didn't have an economic motive. Show me a war that didn't have the goal of capturing resources. We either fight for land or resources--in this case, oil. All wars have economic motives and are fought for economic goals, regardless of whether they are fought by volunteers or mercenaries, whether Congress approves or not, or whether neocons or liberals are cheerleading. Our morally bankrupt politicians are good at hiding their greed behind high-sounding moral motives (humanitarian intervention, indeed!), but the bottom line is that war is ugly, criminal and insane--and carried out by the greedy and powerful to enhance their wealth and power.

There is a simple reason we fight all these wars: because we have the most powerful armed forces in the world. As they say, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you. Remember former Secretary of States Madeleine Allbright was quoted to have said to the military people: "What good is this military power we have put together if we can't use it?"
Since our military might gives us a tremendous advantage in any war, especially wars against weaker armies, we have a tendency to think of military actions as the only solution to any problem. Other countries may have the same moral and humanitarian concerns about suffering in third world countries, but they know that they can't pull it off militarily, because they have not had the experience of doing it in the past. Since world war II, every US president has been involved in one form or another in some type of overseas military conflicts. And even though the United States has never achieved its goals in those conflicts (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan), every president that comes into office thinks they can do better, because they can avoid the mistakes of the previous president.
If we we did not have the most powerful army in the world, we would think twice before defining every situation as national security issue. Look at China and Russia today. They know they cannot go toe to toe with the United States, and they do not have the capacity to project power around the globe. As a result, not intervening in overseas conflicts becomes an easy decision to them.
In the case of the United States, because we have the power to do it (somehow we always have some type of military asset not too far from any global conflict), even if the president is reluctant at first, some advisor will find a way to make him feel guilty, or wimpy for not action forcefully.

1. Oil
2. Oil
3. Oil
4. Oil
5. Oil

I'm 63. I always thought I was a keen observer - an informed voter - and no ordinary patsy for the creeps who gravitate to power slots in government.

I voted O. I purchased the entire package. And I defended him for a year, making excuses each time he strayed from his mandate. New black kid on the block - outnumbered by insiders - too many advisers -

Who knew? He was just another cardboard cut out - new face and color for the same old machine. I'm stunned at my own naivete.

I've often wondered about his wife's odd choice of clothing - she resembles Mrs. Cleaver from the 50's. It's obvious costuming - to make her, what? -- less threatening?

I've been watching this meticulously crafted 'first' presidency long enough to make a few observations.

1st - I think Obama was installed. He came out of no where, anointed by Oprah - and embraced by an eager white population that felt good about itself when it pulled the lever for him. Obama was type cast as the overachieving black boy - son of a single mom - he made Wisconsin housewives weep with pride in the American Dream.

It was pure Hollywood. The Wife - granny upstairs in the White House - and the picture perfect girls. Just another packaging scheme.

2nd - I think he has been managed since day 1. And here I was salivating at the prospect of a slick, Chicago Pol - letting the Black Panthers loose at the Justice Dept - to vet out who shorted all that airline stock in the weeks before 9/11!!!

I pictured Calypso Louie and Al Sharpton making headlines as they dug deeply into the crimes behind the drug wars, and a dozen false flag operations.

I am embarrassed by my expectations.

I'm so jaundiced now that I may never again believe my own eyes and ears - knowing that Producers at this level of theater - these consummate demons - play voters like a cheap ukulele.

Everything is scripted to appeal to the innocent in us - our hopes and our belief systems. There are no heroes and no revolutionaries.

By the time somebody achieves the level of dog catcher in America - he/she is already so damaged, so packaged and skillful at political craft - that they ill suited to public office by definition.

I've always said that anybody who wants to be a cop shouldn't be allowed to be. I guess that goes for Presidents as well.

...have to finish the job. How fitting, they started it. It's their pseudo revolution. How do the Libyan people like us now? Now that we're bombing rebels, government and civilians?

Is that the "help" the Libyan people were expecting?

Intersting topic and good article. I think it´s becoming so diffucult to explain the american people why we keep fighting all the wars. The main point is that one can´t really see good progress. Afghanistan and Iraq are still insecure. Almost every day are terror attacks. In both wars thousands of people died. Of course the US should fight for democracy and human rights but I´m not sure if wars are the right way..But OK, this is extremely hard to answer. Now another topic called Erfüllungsbürgschaften. Here is nice summary about Erfüllungsbürgschaften. But thanks for the great blog!

I have some sympathy with your view that oil was the driving concern. Except that that is to ignore history. Sadam was the West's man during the Iran-Iraq War who then used the same army to invade similarly oil rich Kuwait if you remember. He was clearly a dangerous animal. The crucial point was whether or not the sanctions and weapons inspections program in the wake of the liberation of Kuwait had sufficiently drawn his teeth or not. Note that the line has subtly changed from 'Sadam had weapons of mass destruction' to 'Sadam had the continuing to desire to possess weapons of mass destruction'. The proper response to both would have been stavkovanie a multilateral, UN sanctioned program of inspections backed by sanctions. Desire and capability are two different things. I desire to win an Olympic gold medal in the marathon, but as I'm now 45 that desire is essentially meaningless. I have a sad feeling that my aim to run a sub 3hr marathon this year may be similar . . .